89Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

 

4

Allegoreo | Allegorically

 

Return to Submission…

Public Enemy Number One! Is it Yahowah’s Towrah or Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians? I suppose it depends upon whom you ask.

This extraordinarily strange man is within four verses of his crescendo – the ultimate objective of his life’s work. We are on the cusp of witnessing the most vulgar message ever spoken in the name of God.

But before we consider Paul’s crowning, albeit indicting, achievement, since it is based upon the myth that there are two covenants, with the Devil’s Advocate having established the second through faith, let’s consider the truth in this regard. According to Yahowah, His one and only Covenant has not yet been renewed. And when He, Himself, restores it, His affirmation will be predicated upon the integration of His Towrah in our lives – not its repudiation.

Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding His Covenant and the role His Towrah plays in our lives, let’s let God speak for Himself on this critical matter. For if there is but one Covenant, one familial relationship which can be formed between God and humankind, and if its renewal and reaffirmation is predicated upon our acceptance of His Towrah, we are 90precluded from accepting the myth of a “New Testament.” And should that be the case, we can toss Paul’s letters, and the entire New Testament, to the wind.

Yahowah, speaking for Himself, said...

“‘Behold (hineh – look up, take this all in and pay especially close attention to the details), a time is coming (yowmym bow’ – days are approaching and will arrive (qal participle plural – literally and actually, dramatically and emphatically, for the benefit of the relationship)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s one and only name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) reveals, well in advance of it occurring (na’um – prophetically declares), ‘when I will enter into and cut with (wa karat ‘eth – when I will establish through separation a set-apart agreement on behalf of) the Family of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home and Household of those who Engage and Endure with God, Israel) and with (wa ‘eth – also together with and through) the Family of Yahuwdah (Beyth Yahuwdah – the Household and Home of those Beloved by Yah and Related to Yah, Jews) a restored and renewed (chadash – a repaired and reaffirmed; from chadash – to renew and repair, to restore and reaffirm) Covenant (Beryth – Family-Oriented Relationship).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:31)

The part of this astounding prophetic declaration from God which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament,” miss is that the renewal and restoration of the “Beryth – Covenant” is not with Gentiles, and thus cannot be with their Church. It is, instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el | Jews and Israel. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christianity. Replacement Theology is torn asunder. It is game over. Paul was wrong – dead wrong!

And further aggravating the devastating problem 91Christians face, this reconciliation has not yet transpired. Therefore a “Renewed Covenant” is premature and a “New Testament” will never occur.

As a result, the only question worth debating is whether chadash should be translated “new” or “renewed,” as both are etymologically acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair the Covenant presented in the Towrah with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?

To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of chadash is “to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm.” Of the ten times this verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is translated: “restore and reaffirm” in 1 Samuel 11:14, “renewed and repaired” in 2 Chronicles 15:8, “to repair” in 2 Chronicles 24:4, “to repair and mend” in 2 Chronicles 24:12, “renewed” in Job 10:7, “renew” in Psalms 51:12, “renewed” in Psalms 103:5, again as “renewed” in Psalms 104:30, “repair” in Isaiah 61:4, and “renew and restore” in Lamentations 5:21.

As a further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being the most appropriate translation of chadash in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirma’yah / Jerimiah and Yasha’yah / Isaiah, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe chadash, by rendering it “renewed,” or especially “restored,” we achieve a substantially more enlightening result than translating this word “new.” Further, chadash’s primary meaning is derived from its use as “month,” where it is the renewing of reflected light on the moon’s surface which denotes its beginning.

These things known, the next statement in Yahowah’s end-days prophecy seems to suggest that there will be a different Covenant – distinct from the one whose terms and 92conditions were delineated in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without seriously contradicting other statements He has made, and in so doing, rendering Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?

“‘It will differ somewhat from (lo’ ka – it won’t be exactly like) the Covenant (ha Beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to reveal the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – which provides directions showing the steps to walk which are correct and yet restrictive and give meaning to life, providing encouragement and joy to those who are properly led and guided that (qal perfect)), I entered into (karat – I established by setting apart when I cut) with their fathers (‘eth ‘ab hem) on the day (ba yowm – during the time) I firmly took them by the hand, and with inspiring intent, overpowered the situation (chazaq ‘any ba yad – I showed an intense resolve and was inflexible in My influence over them, even overpowering them due to the urgent need for them to prevail (hifil infinitive construct – I caused this to occur with them, influencing them such that they would be active participants associated with Me)) to bring them out (la yatsa’ min hem – to draw them away from and bring them close, descending and extending Myself to serve by removing them from (hifil infinitive construct)) of the realm of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (‘erets Mitsraym – the place of subjugation associated with religious coercion and political tyranny, the land of military domination and economic cruelty; from a compound of my – to question and tsarym – troubling, confining, and adversarial situations).

Relationally, they broke (‘asher hem parar ‘eth – they sought to nullify that relationship by thwarting its intent and by disassociating from the correct path, thereby revoking the benefits by splitting into two parts (read: creating the Talmud to nullify the Towrah or a New 93Testament to contradict and revoke God’s testimony) (hifil perfect)) My Covenant (‘eth beryth ‘any – My Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) although for a time I acted as a husband with them (wa ‘anoky ba’al ba hem – even though I acted as a husband, even a leader in a position of authority (qal perfect – genuinely only for a limited duration)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as directed by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation) reveals through this prophet (na’um – prophetically declares).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:32)

The key to appreciating the difference between what occurred 3400 years ago during the process of leaving Egypt and what will transpire 13 years from now in Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah, Yisra’el (on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliation, October 2^nd, 2033, which is year 6000 Yah) can be found in the verbal clause: “chazaq ‘any ba yad – I took them firmly by the hand with overwhelming intent, and overpowering the situation, I showed such an intense resolve, becoming inflexible in My influence due to the urgent need to prevail.” At that moment in time, to save the Children of Yisra’el from being annihilated by the Egyptians, there was the urgency to liberate a reluctant and ignorant audience who were enslaved, people who knew little of Yahowah and nothing of His Towrah or Covenant. They had only just then been introduced to Pesach and Matsah and were unaware of anything beyond. It would be seven weeks before they would be given access to Yahowah’s Towrah Guidance and, with it, an explanation of the Conditions of the Covenant.

To get their attention and bring them home Yahowah had to overpower the situation and intervene with overwhelming conviction. Without having done so, He would not have been able to achieve what He knew was needed to honor the promises He had made to ‘Abraham, 94Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob regarding this very same Covenant. His people had to be freed from human oppression after 400 years of slavery (40 years for each of the 10 brothers who sold Joseph into slavery), they had to receive the Towrah fifty days after their liberation, they had to be herded into the Promised Land forty years thereafter, and they had to survive there another 400 years such that Dowd could be anointed, unify them, and establish the Kingdom of Yisra’el.

Thereafter, they would breach the Covenant, be estranged from God, be ravaged by invaders, be dispersed throughout the world, and suffer systematic religious and political abuse as a quid pro quo. But the stage would be set for this day in 2033, which by contrast, the Israelites and Jews experiencing the renewal and restoration of their relationship with God will all know Yahowah because they will have chosen to be Towrah observant, because they will have decided to accept the conditions of the Covenant and attend the Miqra’ey. They will not come kicking and screaming this time, but of their own freewill. They will have made an informed and rational decision to be part of Yahowah’s Family.

The next interesting verb is parar, revealing that the Chosen People have broken their vows. Yisra’el first, then Yahuwdah, sought to nullify the Covenant relationship in preference for their religious and political agendas. They would create the competition – their own convoluted and contradictory texts which would be known over time as the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, the Mishneh and Zohar. But never lose sight of the fact that Jews have long been their own worst enemy. Sha’uwl / Saul / Paul, a failed rabbi, would inspire most of the Christian New Testament. Muhammad, a wannabe Jewish Messiah, bastardized the Babylonian Talmud to satiate his lust for sex, power, and money – creating the Qur’an in the process. With both religions, Jews would not only parar the Covenant, they 95conceived demonic cults bent upon destroying everything God holds dear.

The “beryth – covenant” presented in this declaration is a “family relationship” whereby something is required of every member. Yahowah promises to save us from ourselves, from all forms of human oppression. To benefit, however, we must honor our side of the bargain and observe God’s instructions, distance ourselves from human institutions, and respect Yahowah’s ability to lead us home.

The question then becomes: how is God going to renew and reaffirm His Covenant without contradicting Himself? The answer to that question is a solution which is not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion generally and Paul’s testimony specifically. Yahowah said:

“‘Accordingly and as a consequence (ky – because of this, yes, indeed, truthfully, and instead by contrast), this is (zo’th – specifically) the Covenant (ha beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to enjoy the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – to lead to the correct path to walk to get the most out of life), I will cut (karat – I will create through separation, making and establishing (qal imperfect – with ongoing benefits over time)) with (‘eth – alongside and on behalf of) the House of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home of those who Engage and Endure with God) much later after those days (‘achar ha yowm hem ha hem – during a subsequent period and in a different time, specifically in the latter days),’ prophetically declares (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God):

‘I will provide, placing (nathan – I will literally give and actually ascribe, producing, offering, and bestowing at 96this moment in time (qal perfect)), accordingly (‘eth – the mark and message of our association), My towrah | guidance (towrah ‘any – My teaching, instruction, and directions) within them (ba qereb hem – inside of them, in their core being such that it is part of their inner person, part of their thought process and psychology, influencing their conscience and animating their lives).

And integrated into their inclinations and ability to exercise good judgment (wa ‘al leb hem – then upon their preferences and disposition, their character and thinking, their hearts and minds), I will write it (kathab hy’ – I will inscribe and engrave it (qal imperfect energic nun – literally and emphatically with ongoing implications throughout time)).

Then, I will (wa hayah – and I shall (qal perfect)) approach them as their God (la hem la ‘elohym – I will draw near as a Ram shepherding His sheep). And they shall be My Family (wa hem hayah la ‘any la ‘am – and they will exist near Me as My People (qal imperfect)).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:33)

With this statement, the basis of Christianity and the fulcrum of Paul’s argument disintegrate. It would be irrational for Yahowah to establish His Towrah, then annul His Towrah, replacing it with a “New Testament,” only to go right back to His Towrah. So if you are a Christian, now would be a good time to wave goodbye to Paul and to your faith. It was over long before it began.

This is among the most profoundly exciting announcements in the whole of the prophets. It destroys the credibility of the “Abrahamic” religions because the only actual and proven God is not only returning to His people, Yisra’el | Israel, and therefore not to Roman Catholics, Arab Muslims, American Mormons, or a Gentile Church, He is inscribing His towrah | guidance inside of the 97Covenant’s participants. Since the Towrah is the ultimate answer, the means to restore the relationship, then the notion it was superseded by a Talmud, New Testament, or Qur’an becomes ludicrous.

Second, God’s proclamation explains how the Covenant’s children will live in the hereafter. Having had the opportunity to observe the Towrah or be oblivious to it, having lived our lives under the auspices of freewill so as to be given the opportunity to accept or reject Yahowah and His Covenant, having been in the position where we have to work for understanding if we want to know God, a time will come when that will change. While we will retain freewill, having chosen to be with Yahowah and to be part of His Covenant Family, our Heavenly Father will be in a position to give us the guidance we will need to operate safely in four, five, six, and seven dimensions and throughout the cosmos. And that is why I have written towrah | guidance in lowercase, suggesting that this will comprise God’s teaching for living among the stars.

While this may be hard to fathom at this point, especially if you have not yet read Yada Yahowah, Observations, or Coming Home, there are dimensions beyond the three to which we are accustomed, and it is Yahowah’s intent to enable us to experience them all.

And when it comes to understanding how to get the most out of living in six and seven dimensions, we will not have to translate Yahowah’s future instructions, search for the most accurate text, or seek to interpret the message, because His words will be integrated into the fabric of our lives. This is something God cannot do at this time because mankind must retain the ability, no matter how foolish, to disregard the Towrah. And that becomes impossible when it is written inside of us. But in eternity, to keep us safe, it will be essential for us to have the Creator’s guidance on how to engage and what to avoid, especially when it comes to the magnitude of the forces at play throughout the 98universe.

While I would like the towrah integrated into my life now rather than later, it would not be appropriate, even with Covenant members. Yah is not going to supplant our freewill by imposing Himself on us. This is our time to choose, when we have the opportunity to respond to Yahowah’s calling. We can spend as much or as little time with God as we would like.

We live in an era of discovery where we can capitalize upon what we have been given to embark on the adventure of a lifetime. Today we have the opportunity to work with God to do something that will endure time. We can encourage others to closely examine and carefully consider Yahowah’s Towrah such that they receive the Covenant’s benefits. We can contribute to the size of God’s Family while Yahowah enhances our lives.

On this day in early 2021, as has been the case for nearly 20 years, we have done our utmost to encourage all who are interested, especially Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, to “Yada’ Yahowah – to choose of their own accord to become familiar with, come to know, and understand Yahowah.” It has been and continues to be a labor of love, and the most rewarding and enjoyable opportunity of our lives. We have done so by translating Yahowah’s Towrah | Instructions while contemplating the implications of His Guidance.

God could have avoided religious competition long ago, and mankind’s woes would have been nonexistent. But this could not have occurred without a consequence so severe, it would have negated the very purpose of our very existence.

The reason Yahowah hasn’t yet placed His Towrah inside of us, nor written His instructions on our hearts, is because freewill is sacrosanct. Today, everyone has the ability to choose to know, to love, and to trust God, to 99ignore God, to reject Him, or to replace Him with a divinity of man’s making. If the Torah had been mandated, had it been unrivaled, had it been incorporated into our personalities, there would have been no possible way for any religious alternative to have emerged. And without options, there would have been no choice. Without choice, loving relationships cannot exist. Therefore, while the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship and Yahowah’s Towrah Teachings have been inseparable, it remains possible for us to separate ourselves from them.

This option, which is the choice to reject Yahowah’s instructions and to disassociate from Him, has to end for eternal life with God to begin. So once all who will choose to know and respect Yahowah have decided to do so, once all who remain alive on this planet are part of Yahowah’s family, there is no need for the bane or pain of religion. And yet, even once everyone has been adopted by Him, even when we have all become eternal and are empowered and enriched by our Heavenly Father, then, more than ever, we will still need His Guidance. The universe becomes ours, as does all of God’s power and authority. So, it will be especially important that we understand how to exercise these gifts and wield our power. By giving us His “towrah – guidance,” by placing all of it within us, by writing it upon our hearts, we will be equipped with the knowledge we will require to exercise our newfound freedom appropriately. And that is wonderful, landscape-changing, news. It explains how we will retain freewill throughout eternity, and yet keep from doing something foolish.

Therefore, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 explains what will occur upon Yahowah’s return during “Yowm Kipurym – the Day of Reconciliations” at the end of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles. It illustrates how God will fulfill His Towrah promise to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and with Yahuwdym. And it tells us when the Covenant will be renewed, because that is the only day in all of 100human history in which this transformation, this restoration, can occur in harmony with God’s previous testimony.

This prophetic announcement also affirms the role of the Towrah in our choice to spend eternity with God. It unifies the Towrah and Covenant as the most essential elements of us being included in God’s family. And reading between the lines, it reveals how Yahowah’s Towrah will continue to guide us during the Millennial Shabat and beyond into eternity. It even explains that the purpose of the Covenant is to establish God’s family, so that we can live with our Heavenly Father as His children.

And yet, with all of these affirmations, it is astonishing that Christians routinely mistranslate this passage, truncate it, and remove it from its context, to justify Paul’s proclamation of a “new covenant,” one based upon faith, one unrelated to the Towrah or its God. I dare say, the Christian misinterpretation of this passage ranks among the most debilitating crimes ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

Speaking of this and other crimes, Yahowah revealed the benefit of making His Towrah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual:

“‘No longer shall anyone impart information or teach (wa lo’ lamad ‘owd – no one will continue to instruct or learn from, nor will anyone encourage the acceptance of (piel imperfect – the recipients of this instruction will never be exposed to)) other individuals in association with an evil and outspoken world (‘ysh ‘eth rea’ huw’ – their immoral companions, friends, and errant countrymen among humankind, each of his troublesome neighbors or his loudmouthed associates in an attempt to reason with them) or (wa) even those with familial affinity (‘ysh ‘eth ‘ach huw’ – with regard to blood relatives and closely associated individuals such as family members, and in this 101context: Yisra’el and Yahuwdah) so as to say (la ‘amar – approaching to declare),

“Choose of your own accord to know Yahowah (yada’ Yahowah – decide to recognize and acknowledge Yah, and show some desire to become familiar with and understand Yahowah (qal imperative))!” because (ky – truthfully and by contrast, at this time) everyone will know Me (kol hem yada’ eth ‘any – all of them, without exception, will actually be aware of and genuinely acknowledge Me, and they will continually recognize and literally understand Me (qal imperfect)), from the youngest (la min qatan hem – regarding the approach of the most recent arrival among them) and up to the enduring witness of most important and oldest (wa ‘ad gadowl hem – including those of the longest duration, the earliest arrivals whose eternal testimony remains the most significant, those who arrived a time long ago),’ prophetically reveals (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:34)

Yada’ Yahowah. It is the most empowering declaration in the universe, the most enlightening, liberating, and enriching. It has served as the title of this series of books since the first word was written twenty years ago. Today, it highlights the entire collection of amplified translations, insights, and commentary on the Word of God.

Written in the qal imperative, Yada’ Yahowah encourages you to “choose of your own initiative to come to actually know Yahowah, to recognize and acknowledge God as He has revealed Himself, and to genuinely understand Yahowah, such that you develop an unencumbered relationship with Him.” This remains the sole intent of Yada’ Yahowah.

102Yes, a day will come when every living soul will know Yahowah. It is poetic in a special way. The words which inspired the five million which would follow throughout Yada Yahowah render every word written obsolete. There will no longer be a need for my translations or insights because they will be vastly inferior to what Yahowah will supply. Perhaps you will be among those at my retirement party.

Before we return to Paul’s twisted repudiation of Yahowah’s Covenant, all so that he can create a second covenant of his own, let’s see if we can learn something additional about Yahowah’s most important title by observing it in the language of revelation using the ancient Hebrew pictographic depictions. The first letter of “Beryth – Covenant” is Beyt , which is contracted from beyth, the Hebrew word for “family and home.” This letter was drawn depicting the floor plan of a house with a single entrance from above.

The second letter, Rosh , was drawn to reveal the head of an individual. As is the case with the word re’sh today, the ancient character was symbolic of being the first, best, and foremost, as well as leadership and birth. We are therefore born into the first and foremost family. The human head also focuses our attention on our eyes and ears as means to observe and listen, and our brains as the means to understand.

Turning to the third letter, we find a Yad , today’s Yowd, pictured by way of an arm reaching down and out to us with an open hand. It conveyed the idea of engaging productively to accomplish something worthwhile. As the first letter in Yah’s name, it reveals His willingness to reach out to us and lift us up.

The final character in beryth is either a Theth  or Taw , as these letters were originally one. If Theth, the pictograph was of a woven container, which was used to 103communicate being surrounded and enclosed, and thus valued and protected, as well as being transported from one place to another. And if Taw, the character was drawn as an upright pole with a horizontal beam. It spoke of a doorway, of foundational support, and of a sign and a signature – particularly in its Paleo Hebrew form: t.

Bringing all of these images together, the picture they paint of the “beryth – Covenant” is of a singular doorway into the protected and sheltered home of first and foremost family, and of God reaching out to those of us who observe and listen to His inscription on His signed invitation.

Cognizant of Yahowah’s thoughts and promises regarding His Towrah and its centerpiece, the Covenant, we are better prepared to consider Paul’s contrarian view. He wrote:

“Speak (lego – say) to me (ego) those (oi) under (hypo – subject to the control of and submissive to) Towrah (nomon – nourishing allocation and allotment which leads to an inheritance; consistently used throughout the Septuagint to translate towrah) proposing and deciding (thelo – wanting and desiring, wishing and intending) to exist (eimi – to be), the (ton) Towrah (nomon – the source from which instruction and teaching, direction and guidance flow) do you not hear (ouk akouo – not you listen)?” (Galatians 4:21)

That was gibberish, so before I rearrange the order of the words in the opening clause so that they read more as Sha’uwl intended, let’s try to make sense of the verbal phrase, ouk akouo, literally translated “not you hear.” It was scribed in the second person plural (you all or all of you), present (the action is current and ongoing) active (the 104subject, or Torah, is performing the action) indicative (the author is indicating this situation is real). In conjunction with ouk, which is both a negative particle, annulling the action, and an interrogative, raising a question, the concluding phrase might read: “can’t you hear the Towrah?” or “the Towrah cannot hear you.”

As for the opening clause, it seems to flow better with the words reordered to read: “Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of Towrah,...” If that is correct, it is being used to taunt Paul’s adversaries. After all, Paul has never demonstrated the inclination to listen to anyone, much less his foes – not even to God. Therefore, Paul is either questioning the Towrah observant, suggesting that they do not listen to the Towrah, thereby suggesting that his knowledge is superior to theirs, or he is saying that the Towrah is unable to hear, thereby indicating that, since he has that capacity, he is again superior to God’s Word. And even though both approaches are invalid, that is the best I can do with this.

If Paul were writing for God, which he obviously was not, he would not have said “speak to me.” Nor would he have begun by suggesting that the Towrah observant are “hypo – controlled and submissive.” The Towrah was not designed to listen to us, but for us to listen to what God has to say through it. When we “qara’ – read and recite” the “towrah – teaching” of Yahowah, we “shamar – observe” and “shama’ – listen to” the Word of God. So once again, Paul had this all wrong.

Therefore, the problem is much deeper than the deplorable writing quality. Affirming this, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “Say to me the under law wanting to be the law not you hear.”

Jerome ignored what Paul wrote, hoping not to destroy the wannabe apostle’s credibility. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore says: “Tell me, you that desire to 105be under the law, have you not read the law?”

The Authorized, and thus official, Protestant version of the “New Testament” proposed this unique spin in the King James: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?”

Unable to improve on the KJV’s corruption, the English Standard Version copied it: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” The “literal” New American Standard Bible could do no better, also claiming Paul wrote: “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?”

So when all hope of understanding is lost, we can always turn to the New Living Translation for a novel accounting: “Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says?” And therein lies the problem. Most Christians don’t know what the Torah says. Therefore, they don’t understand God’s Word, they don’t understand Yahowsha’s sacrifice, and they don’t understand that Paul despised and tried to discredit both.

Not long ago, we considered a number of statements Yahowah made about listening which conveyed exactly the opposite message. If you recall, God said: “Listen (shama’) children to the correct instruction of the Father and pay attention so as to know and understand. For indeed, such teaching and learning are good, beneficial, and helpful. For this reason, I have given you My Towrah. You should not forsake it, neglect it, or reject it.... Closely examine and carefully consider (shamar – focus upon and thoroughly evaluate) My terms and conditions and live, being restored to life.” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 4:1-2, 4)

Further assailing Paul’s credibility, Dowd | David announced on behalf of Yahowah: “The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ‘owzen min shama’ – the one who avoids listening and paying attention to) the 106Towrah (Towrah – the source of instruction and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah – his pleas and petitions for intervention) also (gam) will be considered detestable (tow’ebah – will be seen as a disgusting abomination).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 28:9)

Now that Paul has taken yet another lame swipe at Yahowah’s Towrah, he is ready to commence his most diabolical attack – demeaning the Covenant. He begins with a half-truth, with a citation which is somewhat accurate. But by framing his assault using a corruption of the Towrah, Paul has again affirmed that the text which he claims “cannot hear,” and to which the Galatians were “enslaved” was Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching. Listen to one of the most successful schemers of all time twist the truth: “It has been written for Abraham two sons had one from the servant girl and one from the free.”

“For indeed (gar – because), it has been written (grapho – it has been inscribed and engraved) that (hoti) Abram (Abraam – a truncated transliteration of the pre-Covenant Hebrew name ‘Abraham, meaning Merciful and Enriching Father) two (duo) sons (huios) had (echo – possessed), one (heis) from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) and (kai) one (eis) from (ek) the free and independent (tes eleutheros – freeborn person, unbound, and exempt).” (Galatians 4:22)

In actuality, it is not “written that Abraham had two sons,” because from Yahowah’s perspective Abraham only had one son. That is why God asked Abraham in Bare’syth / Genesis 22:2 to “take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitschaq, and go to the land of Mowryah…”

Ishmael was expressly excluded from the Covenant and demonstrably banished from the Promised Land. Therefore, the “son of the slave girl” should only have been mentioned if Sha’uwl had been illustrating these facts – 107which we shall soon discover is the opposite of his intended purpose.

There are few individuals as important to Yahowah and His Covenant as Sarah or her son, Yitschaq. And yet Sha’uwl doesn’t even bother to mention them by name. Moreover, Sarah’s status as an “eleutheros – independent and freeborn individual” was extraneous to her role in the Covenant. She mattered because she was Abraham’s wife and Yitschaq’s mother. She was so important to the Covenant, when she and Abraham differed on a matter, Yahowah told Abraham to listen to his wife and do what she said. And by contrast, when Abraham asked Yahowah to make an exception on behalf of Ishmael, God said absolutely not. When Sarah laughed at something Yahowah said, God joined in, telling Sarah to name her son Laughter, which is Yitschaq in Hebrew.

Sarah’s relevance goes well beyond this. Just look at Yahowah’s name written using the ancient Hebrew pictographic letters and reading from right to left –  – whereby the final three letters following Yahowah’s outstretched hand represent “Abraham and Sarah,” with the Hebrew letter conveying the conjunction “wa – and” between them. Yahowah was thereby telling them, and us through them, that they individually as well as their family would be increased and that their home would grow and become secure. Yahowah’s favorite place on Earth, Yisra’el, is based upon Sarah’s name and means: “Individuals who Engage and Endure with God.” Therefore, being married, which is the antithesis of being “eleutheros – independent and unbound,” is why Sarah matters to the “beryth – marriage covenant and family-oriented relationship.”

But let’s remember, Paul’s affections were never directed at women. He would not know or understand the joys of marriage or of raising children. And perhaps that is why Paul imagined those he had beguiled into the Faith 108becoming his children, for whom he endured birth pangs.

Paul has reprised his “for indeed it has been written,” introductory line to deceive his audience into believing that God had an ongoing relationship with both sons. He is doing this so that he can deceive readers into believing that there were two covenants. But there aren’t, which is why Paul did not cite any portion of the story which begins in Bare’syth / Genesis 17 and is advanced through the 21^st chapter. And because God did not say what Paul wanted, he made something up and tried to pass it off as if it were a citation from the Towrah.

This was not the only time he would foist this fable. He parades it out again in Romans 9, where he boasted “I am not lying,” there are multiple “covenants,” with one yielding “children of the flesh,” while the other begets “children according to the promise.”

The reason for Paul’s duplicity in Galatians, as well as in Romans, is that Pauline Doctrine is built upon the following precepts: 1) God established two covenants, not one. 2) The covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai was formed with Hagar and Ishmael rather than with Sarah and Yitschaq. 3) The covenant depicted in the Torah enslaves those who observe it. 4) The verbal promises made to Abraham bypass the Torah. 5) There is no relationship between Yahowsha’ and the Torah. 6) Christians become God’s children by way of the verbal promise, not through the Covenant or the Towrah. And 7) Believing the promise necessitates rejecting the Torah.

Sha’uwl’s entire argument is erroneous and preposterous, but yet it serves as the foundation of Christianity – a religion set apart from the Torah and its God. He was as Yahowah called him – the plague of death.

Promoting this deadly deception to Evangelical Christians, the New Living Translation lied and said: “The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his 109slave wife and one from his freeborn wife.” The authors of this sentence knew that there was no basis for “wife” in the Greek text once, much less twice, but that did not stop them from copyediting something they were passing off as “Scripture,” doing so in order to artificially elevate Abraham’s morality. The reason they are assisting in this way is that Pauline Doctrine is based upon Abram, at the expense, and thus exclusion, of the Torah. It is like Islam in this way.

As for the older Christian witnesses, the Protestants simply copied the Catholics. The Latin Vulgate reads: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman.” So the KJV wrote: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.”

Paul’s case against the Torah hinges upon the faulty notion that the conversation Yahowah enjoyed with Abraham at the initiation of the Covenant was completely different than the Towrah’s commemoration of it, creating a contrived distinction between the promises God announced and God asking that they be written down so that the terms and benefits of His Covenant would be known to everyone.

After foisting this lie, Paul reinforces it before returning to his central ploy. Not only would his faith be based upon an unrecorded and unknown promise, and thus be wholly disassociated with Yahowah’s Towrah, Paul’s new covenant would be predicated upon another false premise. So while I recognize that this statement lacks fluidity, it isn’t my fault. Paul was evidently learning to write while learning to lie. Consider the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear: “But the indeed from the servant girl by flesh has been born the but from the free by promise.”

Removing the extraneous words, and reporting those found in the oldest manuscript more accurately, Sha’uwl 110wrote...

“Certainly (alla – nevertheless and to the contrary) [this affirmation (o men – the indeed; not extant in P46)] from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) according to (kata – by) flesh (sarkos – physical human body and nature) has been born (gennao – has been procreated and given birth), [but that (o de – then this; not found in P46)] from (ek) the free and unbound (tes eleutheros – the freeborn person, independent, and exempt) by way of (dia – through) a proclaimed promise (epaggelia – verbal announcement and agreement).” (Galatians 4:23)

Both boys were conceived and born the same way, only by way of different mothers. Although to be fair, it took a miracle for Sarah to conceive and bear a healthy child at 90 years of age. It is even true that both boys were circumcised (albeit only Yitschaq experienced it in accordance with the Torah’s instructions).

None of that mattered to Paul because his goal was to demonstrate that if you were Torah observant, then you were a slave. Whereas if you believe Paul, you are instantly saved.

It is instructive to know that, while most lexicons include “promise” among epanggelia’s definitions, the word’s etymology suggests that this rendering is a legacy of Paul’s argument. In the general sense, the noun epaggelia means “announcement.” It was primarily used as a legal term in ancient Greece, and denoted a “summons.” Not surprisingly, it is derived from the verb, epaggello, which means “to announce a summons.”

Epaggelia is a compound of epi, meaning “upon, by, and before,” and aggelos “messenger.” So in our attempt to be accurate, according to our fledgling writer, the freeborn child was literally “by messenger,” and figuratively “by summons or announcement.”

111Ever the clever one, Paul’s ploy was designed to kill two birds with a single stone. By artificially differentiating the conception of Ishmael through Hagar as “of the flesh” and Yitschaq through Sarah (albeit neither were named) “by way of a proclaimed promise,” Sha’uwl was able to disregard the Towrah while demeaning it. He reinforced his view that the Torah enslaved while at the same time denouncing it as being of the flesh, and thus corruptible. This would then lead to him condemning circumcision, which was also of the flesh. So while this is nothing more than a string of half-truths and lies, to Paul’s credit they are woven together in a clever way.

Therefore, as is the case with all effective deceptions, just enough of this statement was accurate to give Paul’s ploy a veneer of credibility, making the ruse sufficiently beguiling to conceive a new religion. Sarah’s solution to God’s announcement was to use a surrogate mother (“of the flesh”). But since Yahowah’s Covenant is based upon the importance of conceiving a loving family, the human remedy (which was to use a slave as a surrogate) was not acceptable. The Covenant (which is a mutual vow) would therefore be consistent with God’s plan, not with man’s modality.

Paul’s Christian troubadours scribed the following in support of the false prophet’s scheme. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate promotes: “But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise.” So then the Protestant Authorized King James Version published: “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.”

The NLT’s recasting of Paul’s statement is inaccurate with regard to the Torah (Hagar was not Abraham’s wife), and also inconsistent with the Greek text of the epistle. “The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son 112of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.”

Being accurate here is actually a big deal, because the Covenant is the most important thing in the universe to Yahowah. Further, the original announcement of the Covenant agreement made with Abraham is found in but one place: the Towrah – which is the foundation of God’s Word. And even today, it serves as Yahowah’s invitation to us, one where we are afforded the opportunity to choose to appear before God as His children rather than appear before Him as our Judge.

Now that Sha’uwl has laid the cornerstone of his faith upon the shifting and desolate sands of deceit, he is set to erect the most beguiling straw man in human history. And since I am very uncomfortable with (read revolted by) Paul’s next statement, let’s approach the edifice of his religion by way of the Nestle-Aland’s scholastic rendering of the text through the McReynolds Interlinear: “Which is being allegorized these for are two agreements one indeed from hill Sinai to slavery giving birth who is Hagar.”

Before I comment, I’d like you to contemplate the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical portraits of Christianity’s straw man. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, compiled on the authority of his pope, reads: “Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar.” Sir Francis Bacon’s political enterprise on behalf of King James published: “Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” And the Evangelical paraphrase, mislabeled the New Living Translation, in keeping with 2 Timothy 4:3, authored the following to tickle the ears of their target market: “These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved 113them.”

Now here is a more literal and complete translation of Sha’uwl’s Greek text for your consideration:

“Whatever (hostis – whoever or anything that) is being (eimi) spoken of allegorically (allegoreo – a form of speech which should be taken figuratively, an illustrated discussion in which a comparison, illustration, or metaphor are used), these (autos) then (gar) exist as (eimi) two (duo) covenants or testaments (diatheke – dispositions or promised agreements between parties which settle affairs and facilitate inheritances through a will), one (heis) indeed (men – surely and by way of affirmation and concession) from (apo) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina – a transliteration of the Hebrew Synay) into (eis – to) subservience, slavery, and bondage (douleia), giving birth to (gennao) whoever (hostis) exists as (eimi) Hagar (Agar – transliteration of the Hebrew Hagar, from hagah, meaning to moan).” (Galatians 4:24)

In context, it appears as if Sha’uwl scribed:

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of Towrah: can’t you hear the Towrah? (Galatians 4:21)

For indeed because it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl according to flesh has been born, while from the free by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar.” (Galatians 4:24)

As I read these words, my hands are paralyzed above 114the keyboard. I am saddened and revolted. My stomach churns, my heart breaks, and my head is bowed in shame. How is it possible that the world’s largest religion was erected upon something so obviously false? Why wasn’t this letter discarded as rhetorical rubbish? Why did anyone believe Paul?

Unlike his previous statements, this is neither a credible counterfeit nor a plausible ploy. It is an outright lie – the kind of thing which only fools fools, hoodwinking the ignorant or irrational.

Paul has postured a deception which pierces the heart of God. He has crossed the point of no return and taken Christians back into the wilderness to die. Nothing ever written has been as demonic or deadly.

There is only one covenant, not two. The Hebrew word beryth upon which the Familial Covenant Relationship is based is never plural. It was established between Yahowah, Abraham and Sarah, and then affirmed with Yitschaq and Ya’aqob after them. Ishmael (who was freed, incidentally) was expressly excluded from the Covenant, and was banished from the Promised Land, as was his mother (who was also freed).

This singular Covenant begat the Children of Yisra’el. It led to the liberation of the Chosen People during the Exodus. Yahowah’s one and only Covenant was memorialized in the Towrah on Mount Sinai and serves as the foundation of God’s Word.

According to Yahowsha’, the Torah’s presentation of the Covenant delineates the narrow path to a relationship with God and to our subsequent redemption. Yahowsha’ said that there is no life apart from the Torah. For it is this very Torah which gives meaning to Yahowsha’s life and the nature of his sacrifice.

There is no association between Hagar and the 115revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai, nor between the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, and being placed into bondage. So what Paul has done by speaking of the Covenant in these terms, by referencing bondage, and by dropping the names Sinai and Hagar, is wrap his overt lie in a grotesque corruption of the truth, making it particularly insidious. And in so doing, he established the model Muhammad, Satan’s second most effective messenger, would follow. Both religions were founded upon tormented caricatures of Abraham, at the exclusion of the Torah, Yahowah, and the truth.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism have been construed to appear credible by weaving twisted elements of truth through overt distortions of it, and thereby making outright lies appear credible to the unsuspecting and unthinking. That is what has occurred here. Shards of this are true, albeit horribly misshapen to suit Satan’s agenda.

The Towrah and Prophets have allegorical elements because Yahowah loves to compose word pictures. There is a Covenant. It was codified on Mount Sinai. And while Hagar and her son were expressly excluded from it, Islam, the Arabic word for “submission,” did emerge from them, leading billions into subservience, slavery, and bondage. In their rage, today’s Muslims have become the embodiment of Yahowah’s prediction when He said about Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12)

Unfortunately for billions of souls, the Christian religion was established upon Sha’uwl’s allegory, whereby their “‘Lord Jesus Christ’ died for them on a cross.” It did 116not matter that the Lord was the Adversary, that this was not his name or title, or that God cannot die, because the Torah was now dead and the truth slaughtered, having been replaced by Paul’s illusions. Thereby, the purpose and benefits of Yahowsha’s sacrifice were annulled. For Christians, as a direct result of Paul, it became sufficient to “believe to be saved.” A profession of faith in something that is not true replaced trust in the truth Yahowah had established.

But why were so many people fooled by something which was diametrically opposed to that which God had communicated in His Word? After all, it is preposterous to correlate the Covenant promises memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, or to suggest that God’s Word enslaves. The Towrah’s codification of the Covenant celebrated Yahowah’s ability to lead His children – all of us – away from religious and political oppression, and to freedom.

Before we wrestle with the devastating blunders in Paul’s artifice, some words about the words. Allegoreo didn’t need to be translated because the Greek term was transliterated into English. It is from allos, meaning “other or another,” and agoreo, meaning “to address an assembly by speech or in writing.” An allegory is “another way of communicating with people through a story or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning – typically a religious or political one.”

Nonetheless, Paul is saying that no matter what the allegory or word picture God was painting in the Torah’s depiction of Hagar and her banished child, that it was irrelevant to the point he, Paul, was now making: which is that there are two covenants, with the one codified with Moseh on Mount Sinai leading to slavery. In other words, Sha’uwl is saying: “Regardless of the intent of Yahowah’s story, my interpretation is all that matters.” Never mind that the Covenant codified with Moseh was written during the Exodus, when Yahowah was leading the Children of 117Yisra’el, the descendants of Yitschaq, out of the house of slavery.

If you believe Paul, when you die, your soul will cease to exist – the consequence of being beguiled by a pathetic lie. If you trust Yahowah and rely upon His promises, you become God’s child and will live forever with Him. But you cannot have it both ways. To believe Paul is to distance yourself from Yahowah. To trust Yahowah is to reject Paul.

The next interesting word is diatheke. In addition to meaning “covenant,” it describes “a testament or will used to transfer property to one’s heirs.” It is from the verb, diatithemai: “to arrange one’s affairs in such a way that by entering into an agreement a person is assured of inheriting something valuable.” The verb is a compound of dia, “by way of,” and tithemi “that which is set aside and set in place.”

Thithemi conveys the idea of “having money laid aside to help establish someone,” and as a result, it foreshadows the concept of “redemption.” So there is nothing wrong with the word. The problem is that Paul rendered it in the plural and then he built the deadliest of all straw men upon it.

Should you want to exonerate Paul by suggesting there may have been some confusion between the Sinai desert and Mount Sinai, every lexicon at our disposal links the Sinai with Mount Sinai, which is also known as Choreb | Horeb. It is the place Yahowah conveyed His Towrah to Moseh. Moreover, Paul ends any doubt that he was speaking of Mount Sinai, not the Sinai Peninsula, again in the next verse.

That is not to say there aren’t two Sinais. There are, and they are not coterminous. The Sinai Peninsula is a desert sandwiched between the two arms of the Red Sea. The Children of Yisra’el crossed this wilderness en route 118to Mount Sinai, which is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba in today’s Saudi Arabia. Hagar, however, was never in one or on the other.

Mount Sinai was the place Yahowah introduced Himself to Moseh, and where He subsequently revealed the Towrah to him following the Exodus. However, Hagar wandered aimlessly toward Shur before Ishmael was born. Shur, we learn from Bare’syth / Genesis 16:7, 20:1, 25:18, and Shemowth / Exodus 15:22, was within walking distance of what is today’s southeastern border of Israel. That places Shur east of Egypt, east of the Sinai, and east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Then after Ishmael was born, Hagar and her son were banished into the desert of Paran, which is similarly located.

Rather than associating the wilderness of Sin (a.k.a. the Sinai Peninsula) with Paul’s four references to Sina (two in Galatians and two in Acts), Strong’s Lexicon defines Sina as “a mountain or rather a mountainous region in the Arabian Peninsula made famous by the giving of Mosaic Law.” They are mostly right, which makes Paul completely wrong.

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament says of Sina: “the mountain or mountain range in the peninsula of the same name, between Egypt and modern Saudi Arabia.” Unaware that the “peninsula” was and remains part of Egypt today, they would be wrong on both accounts. The Mount Sinai Moseh visited before he entered Egypt, and again after he had left Egypt, was on the eastern side of the Red Sea crossing, and thus not in Egypt but instead on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary also exacerbates Paul’s dilemma, saying that Sina refers to “the site of the burning bush.” It is “the name of a peninsula and a mountain range.” In that they go on to associate the location of Mount Sinai within the Sinai Peninsula, they 119would also be wrong, as there would have been no sea to cross and the Exodus would have stalled in Egypt.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament cites Acts 7:38 which digs Paul into a still deeper hole. It reads: “They are the ones who became the called-out assembly in the desert with the messenger speaking to him in the Mount Sinai (Sina) and our fathers who welcomed the living words given to us.”

But we did not need the help of the scholastic tomes to condemn Paul. He hung himself. In his very next statement he acknowledges that the Sina he is referencing to falsely associate a covenant with Hagar is “Sinai mountain existing in Arabia.” And that is Mount Choreb | Horeb upon which Yahowah revealed His Towrah | Teaching to Moseh.

There is yet another interesting insight into Sinai. Spelled Syny in Hebrew, in the ancient pictographic alphabet, it would have been written – . Syny | Sinai would have conveyed: “the sign of the open and receptive hand of God reaching down and out to us to conceive children who grow by going to where God’s hand leads.”

Also interesting considering Hebrew grammar, the Yowd  at the conclusion of Syny would read as “My” or “I.” Therefore, Syny |  means: Sign I Handed to My Children.

There is no doubt Paul proposed two covenants and God has said there is only one. Paul wrote that there was a covenant formed with Hagar, and God has said that His Covenant was formed with Abraham and Sarah. Further, Paul has said that the covenant codified on Mount Sinai enslaves us while God has demonstrated that it liberates. Therefore, since there is an irreconcilable divide between Paul and Yahowah, one of the two must be wrong.

Beyond the stark contrast between God and this man, 120ponder the preposterous notion of using the Towrah’s central story to advance a doctrine designed to destroy the credibility of that same Towrah. And yet, since the Towrah is the only place that Abraham, Sarah, and the Covenant are known, that is exactly what Paul has done.

Since I am stating categorically, not allegorically, that Paul, the mother of the Christian Church, is lying, and that his thesis is in direct opposition to God, let’s consider Yahowah’s side of this story. He was opposed to establishing a Covenant relationship with Hagar’s son: “Then Abraham said to God, ‘What about Ishmael? Could he exist in your presence?” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:18) “God said, ‘Absolutely not.’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) There would be no covenant of any kind with “the son of the slave woman.” Sorry, Paul. To quote Yahowah, “Absolutely not.”

The Covenant is singular and eternal. It was affirmed with ‘Yitschaq as opposed to Ishmael: “Sarah, your wife, shall have a child, bearing your son, and you shall call his name: ‘Yitschaq.’ I will stand up and establish My Covenant Relationship with him as an eternal and everlasting family relationship with his offspring after him.” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) Yahowah’s Word and Paul’s letter are irreconcilable, as are those who place their faith in Paul’s lies.

In direct opposition to Paul’s claim that “indeed from Mount Sinai into slavery,” on Mount Sinai, and in His own hand, Yahowah wrote: “I am Yahowah, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:2)

The following statement, also from the Towrah, obliterates the notion that Paul had poetic license to delete portions of Yahowah’s Guidance he did not like, or add his own commandments: “With all the words (dabar – communications and statements) which, for the benefit of 121the relationship, I provide as Instructions for you (tsawah ‘eth – provide by way of direction to you), closely observe and carefully consider them (shamar – focus upon them). Do not add (yasap – make any increase or addition) to them and do not decrease or reduce them (gara’ – subtract from them).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:32)

As for Paul’s assertion that the Torah had a limited shelf life, Yahowah inspired Yasha’yah / Isaiah to write: “The grass dries up and the flower withers but the Word (dabar) of our God stands and is established (quwm – encourages, supports, raises up, and restores) forever (‘owlam – eternally).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 40:8)

The unchanging nature of God and His Covenant promises will be honored (which is to say they have been and will continue to be fulfilled, even in our future): “Because I, Yahowah, have not changed, you, the children of Ya’aqob | Yisra’el, will not perish or be destroyed.” (Mal’aky / Messenger / Malachi 3:6)

Why do Christians believe Paul’s anti-Torah rhetoric when his statements are diametrically opposed to Yahowsha’s? The Passover Lamb is translated saying:

“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you do not consider, expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that 122which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).

I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to create a division, to dismiss, to invalidate, or to discard (kataluo – to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish, dismissing any implication or its influence) but, instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill (pleroo – to proclaim and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (Matthew 5:17)

For this reason (gar – because then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest lines distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the 123totality of it) might take place (ginomai – happens and occurs, becoming a reality). (Matthew 5:18)

Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean – if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), or (kai) he may espouse and indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) mankind (anthropos – humanity) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will be afforded the name and will be judicially summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient, irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means elachistos – little and lowly)) by the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).

And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (addressing the Towrah) (poieomai – may engage through the Towrah, making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)) and (kai) teach it (didasko – try to provide and share the Towrah’s instructions, expounding upon its guidance), this (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and called (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately designated) great and important (megas – 124astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens).” (Matthew 5:19) Yahowsha’s statement regarding the Towrah is the antithesis of what Paul wrote throughout his letter to the Galatians.

Yahowsha’ would conclude his Instruction on the Mount with this announcement regarding the connection between the Towrah and life:

“If (ei – introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and actively being (ontes – currently existing and in the process of being (present active participle)) troublesome and morally corrupt (poneros – seriously flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar with and have actually known how (oida – have perceived and have shown that you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi – to provide) good and beneficial (agathos – moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma – presents) to your children (tois umon teknon – to your descendants and offspring), how much more by contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi – personally respond to reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good, moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos – that which is upright and worthy, capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking Him (tois aiteo auton – actively responding to Him making a request of Him (present active participle))?

Anything (pas – everything), therefore (oun – then), to the degree or extent (ean hosos – whenever and as far as) you might want or may enjoy (thelo – you might 125decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active subjunctive)) as a result of (hina – that) men being human (oi anthropos – individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing to you (poieo umin – actively attempting to assign these things with regard to you (present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto – likewise in this manner, thusly) you (umeis) should choose to actively do to them (poieomai autois – you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active imperative)).

This (houtos) then (gar – for this reason) presently is (estin – exists as) the Towrah (o nomos – Torah teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction, becoming the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; translated using nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets (kai oi prophetes) under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some point in time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai – at a moment in time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in, beginning the journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative)) through (dia – by way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-tread, and exacting door (tes stenos pule – the doorway with known requirements which is restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an infrequently-trodden gateway (note: stenos is based upon histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti – for the reason that namely) broad, manmade, and crafted to be wide open (platys – molded, malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial 126thoroughfare; from plasso – formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of plastic) is the door (pule – is the gate) and spacious (eurychoros – as encompassing as nations, widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base with eusebeia – especially religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout and pious practices) is the way (e hodos – is the path and journey, the popular way through life, the well-traveled road and route, the common course of conduct) which misleads and separates (e apago – that takes away, leading through deception; from ago – directs, leads, and guides to apo – separation) into (eis) utter destruction (apoleia – needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of one’s existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi – to be put entirely out of the way, to be rendered useless and to be abolished, coming to an end and ceasing to exist), and a great many (kai polys – the vast preponderance, an enormous number, and to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great, many, much, and a large number) are those (eisin – are actually the ones (present active indicative)) who are influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi eiserchomai – who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey while experiencing the effect of going out (present middle passive participle nominative)) through it (dia autos – by way of it).

Certainly (tis – it is certain that), the appropriate doorway has specific requirements, it is narrow, seldom tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e stenos pule – the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld), and it goes against the crowd to the point of being exceedingly unpopular (kai thlibomai – it is so totally shunned to the point of being rebuked (perfect passive participle nominative)), the one way (e e hodos – 127the specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads, separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe – vigorous and flourishing living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos – an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o – exist the ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos – presently learning and actively discovering the location of it, themselves experiencing it).” (Matthew 7:11-14)

According to Yahowsha’, the Passover Lamb, the Towrah provides a seldom-tread doorway to life while man’s popular ways lead to death.

Yahowsha’s final words to his disciples echoed this same thought:

“He said to them, ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was with you, because it is necessary to completely fulfill everything that is written in the Towrah of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms about me.’

Then he opened their minds so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand what had been written.

He told them, ‘Because, in this way, it is written that the Implement of Yah must undergo and experience suffering and be enabled to arise from being separated on the third day.

And it should be announced publicly in Yahowah’s name, ‘Change your perspective, attitude, and thinking to be forgiven and pardoned for wandering from the path and missing your inheritance,’ to all nations, races, and places, commencing from Yaruwshalaim. You are witnesses to this.

And behold, I have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message of My Father’s 128announced and promised agreement.

But now, you remain in the city until you are clothed in power and ability from above.’” (Luke 24:44-49)

Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the written Towrah, the Covenant, and our Heavenly Father’s promises are inseparable. One flows out of the other.

In direct opposition to Paul, Dowd (who most know as David) wrote the following lyrics for a Song to proclaim the value of the Towrah:

“Day unto day pours out answers, and night unto night reveals knowledge which leads to understanding.

Nothing exists without the Word. There is nothing of value when and where the spoken and written message of the voice which calls out is corrupted or negated, becoming unimportant and not heard.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:2-3)

“Yahowah’s Towrah is wholly complete and entirely perfect, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul.

Yahowah’s eternal witness and restoring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the receptive.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

This is the antithesis of everything Paul has written. If only Christians would compare this passage to Paul’s epistles, they would reject everything he wrote in favor of what God revealed.

But Dowd | David was not finished affirming what Paul attempted to belittle…

“Yahowah’s directions for living are right, causing the heart to rejoice.

129Yahowah’s terms and conditions are morally pure, shining a light toward understanding.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:8)

Dowd did not find the Towrah to be an unbearable burden as Paul has alleged. Since Dowd is right (tsadaq – correct according to Yahowah), the basis of Paul’s manifesto is wrong.

This speaks of God’s purpose, which is to form a relationship with us, and of His promise, which is to make such a thing possible and enduring. To accomplish this, God must make us acceptable.

“Revering and respecting Yahowah is cleansing and restoring, sustaining and establishing forever.

The just means to execute good judgment and resolve disputes of Yahowah are trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable. They are wholly vindicating, making the recipient right.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:9)

So much for Paul’s notion that God’s Towrah never justifies and always enslaves. Dowd | David is the central figure in God’s story, the Messiah, Son of God, King, and Shepherd, while Sha’uwl | Paul is the Father of Lies, Plague of Death, and Son of Evil. This is not a difficult choice.

The man Yahowah announced was “tsadaq – correct” wrote…

“Moreover, your coworker is admonished and enlightened, being taught by them. And in carefully observing them, there is a great benefit and reward.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:11)

This was and remains the purpose of the Towrah. It’s our Maker’s Operating Manual, telling us through words how to get the most out of this life and make it to the next. Those who carefully observe what our Heavenly Father had to say will be rewarded, because they will become His 130children and inherit the universe.

This, the most debilitating sin, became Sha’uwl’s Achilles heel…

“Also, keep your coworker away from arrogance, not letting this rule over me.

Then I will be completely prepared and blameless, ready for action, upright, and lacking nothing, and I will be considered innocent, distanced from the great transgression of rebellion.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:13)

If God is right, Paul was wrong. Observing the Towrah is the source of wisdom, renewal, joy, enlightenment, being eternally established in Yahowah’s presence, being considered right and vindicated, in addition to providing a great reward. While we should be exceedingly grateful, exuberant in our enthusiasm, and confident in our disposition, there is no reason for arrogance because we are reliant on Yahowah, not ourselves. If we are self-directed or self-important, then we are not in a position to rely upon Yahowah’s provision and are in no position to speak for Him. In this light, it is especially worth noting that Dowd | David listed “rebellion” as “the great transgression,” something Paul should have considered before he spoke so defiantly against God.

Dowd’s closing line is particularly inspiring...

“Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and pleasing in your presence, Yahowah, my Rock and my Redeemer.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:14)

The means to this wonderous outcome is by observing the Towrah | Guidance of Yahowah – the very thing Paul told his believers to avoid like the plague.

Since Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s message and Dowd’s | David’s are diametrically opposed, there is but one 131informed and rational conclusion: Paul lied. He was a false prophet. While the issue of whether or not Yahowah can be trusted is life and death to all of us, and is easily answered, it is irrelevant to Paul’s veracity because he claimed to speak for the God he contradicted.

This is the end of the line for Sha’uwl | Paul. The Father of Deception has proven beyond any doubt that he was the Devil’s Advocate. There is not a snowflake’s chance in She’owl that Sha’uwl spoke for God. His epistle was not inspired and thus is not “Scripture.” The Son of Evil was a complete and utter fraud.

Had Paul not repeatedly made the presumptuous claim that he was speaking for God as His authorized apostle to the world, had Paul not claimed that he could not lie, had he not said that his preaching saved those who believed him, or that the faithful were his children and should follow his example, then his errant statements would have been no different than thousands of other misguided religious advocates. But he made these claims, and as a result, Paul’s lifeless deceptions were placed in the heart of the book canonized by the faith he conceived. The consequence of his arrogance has been catastrophic.

When considering this comparison, it should be noted that Yahowah used precisely fulfilled prophecy, brilliantly conceived imagery, a masterfully designed plan and consistent, multi-faceted, intertwined message, along with the creation of the universe and the conception of life, to prove beyond any doubt that His Word could be trusted. But Paul could neither write intelligently nor credibly recount his own personal history. This contest has not been David versus Goliath; it has been a speck of dust against the Creator and His universe. So why is it then that nearly two billion Christians believe Paul over Yahowah?

Christians have been deceived by a psychotic man. They are, however, responsible for their own predicament. 132A person must be tragically ignorant and hopelessly irrational to believe anything Paul has written. He is the scum of the earth. And yet it is likely Paul’s faith that has incapacitated believers, such that they no longer think that the truth matters.

Whatever the cause, the Christian condition cannot be resolved until an individual is willing to change his attitude and approach, his perspective and thinking, such that he is taught and guided by Yahowah’s Towrah. To accomplish this, Christians have to drain the religious swamp of Paul’s delusions; otherwise, the seeds of truth will not take root and grow.